TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by producing the said party before him. The AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law. AO, while deciding the issue, shall keep in mind the various decisions relied on by the DR. We hold and direct accordingly. The first ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.4110/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2019 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate And Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the party is being contacted and the reply for the reference will be filed on the next date of hearing. Subsequently, summons were issued to the lender for compliance and the assessee was also directed to remain present on the date of hearing for filing cross objection during the statement, if any. However, on the date of compliance, none appeared on behalf of the lender. The AO, therefore, asked the assessee to substantiate the credit worthiness of the lender M/s Ram Alloy Casting Pvt. Ltd., as the details submitted by the assessee and confirmation received from the party prove that the company does not have sufficient funds to advance to the assessee. The assessee reiterated that the said party has already replied to the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttention of the Bench to the same which reads as under:- 4.2 I have carefully considered the whole issue. The appellant received loan of ₹ 27 lacs in 2 transactions on 12.08.2011 and 17.08.2011 for ₹ 20 lacs and ₹ 7 lacs respectively shown to have been received from Ram Alloy Casting (P) Ltd. From the copy of ITR acknowledgement of the depositor company for A.Y. 2012 - 2013, I find that the returned income is at Rs. NIL. From the copy of the B/s. of the depositor company as on 31.03.2012, the loan transaction is not apparent. The contention of the AO that the confirmation received through speed post allegedly sent by the depositor is in fact sent by the appellant himself in the name of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a settled law that amount received through banking channel, alone is not sufficient for holding the same as genuine. In this case, the AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of the transaction on examining the documents furnished at the first instance by the appellant. He issued notice U/s. 133 (6), in response to which, the appellant himself signed the same documents again (which were furnished by him earlier) vide speed post in the name of depositor. All efforts of the AO to examine the genuineness of the transaction by examining the depositor U/s. 131 also failed since, neither the depositor appeared, nor the appellant attempted to produce the depositor. I have also, gone through various case laws relied upon by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also inapplicable. In the case of EXOIMP RESOURCES (INDIA) LTD., VS. CIT 276 ITR 87 (KOL.), the issue was as to whether any explanation was furnished by the assessee to the AO in respect of deposits. The Hon ble High Court held that it is necessary on the AO to examine the explanation and then to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the explanation is satisfactory. In view of this the Hon ble High Court remitted back the said case to 1TAT to see as to whether any explanation was furnished to the AO before the Asstt. was made by the AO. I really fail to understand that as to how the ratio of this authority is applicable on this case. In the case of SAROGI CREDIT CORPORATION VS. CIT 103 ITR 344 (PAT.), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, the assessee is in a position to substantiate the credit worthiness of the same lender by producing him along with necessary evidences to substantiate the credit worthiness of the said party. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that despite opportunities granted by the AO and the CIT(A), the assessee was unable to substantiate the credit worthiness of the said party by producing the party before the AO along with necessary details. Therefore, the matter need not be restored to the file of the AO and should be decided here itself. The ld. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron Steel Pvt Ltd., reported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
